What was the worst car you ever owned.

[PG]

On investigation turned out to have a wooden piston

Initially I thought this was a joke, until I looked it up! Every days a school day

1991 Granada Scorpio 24v takes the thirstiest prize. It averages (or averaged as it's in currently in bits!) 12mpg but will sustain single figures if you're in a hurry....

I've a memory of an advert Ford ran along the lines of -
Friday night, 200 miles to drive, what better introduction to the Granada
- with mpg that low it makes you wonder what size fuel tank they fitted to it...

 

[bspahh]

Initially I thought this was a joke, until I looked it up! Every days a school day


I've a memory of an advert Ford ran along the lines of -
Friday night, 200 miles to drive, what better introduction to the Granada
- with mpg that low it makes you wonder what size fuel tank they fitted to it...

70L according to https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-specs/Ford/7267/Ford-Scorpio-I-29i-24v.html which gives a range of 388 miles with the combined economy figure of 25mpg.

 

[PG]

70L according to https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-specs/Ford/7267/Ford-Scorpio-I-29i-24v.html which gives a range of 388 miles with the combined economy figure of 25mpg.

So, with a pinch of salt at the quoted economy figure, it'd do that 200 trip but maybe not too much more! Makes you wonder about all this range anxiety with electric cars

 

[DustyBin]

70L according to https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-specs/Ford/7267/Ford-Scorpio-I-29i-24v.html which gives a range of 388 miles with the combined economy figure of 25mpg.

That’s only downhill, wind assisted and freshly polished. Trust me!

So, with a pinch of salt at the quoted economy figure, it'd do that 200 trip but maybe not too much more! Makes you wonder about all this range anxiety with electric cars

Without going too far OT, I’ve said all along that range isn’t the issue. My Fiesta ST, which serves as my company car, will only do circa 260 miles on a full tank. The difference is that it takes a couple of minutes to fill it up, and there’s no shortage of places in which to do so (even if like me you only feed it the good stuff!).

 

[Strathclyder]

Not a car I've owned (have never owned my own motor. Not yet at least, tho I do have a few ideas as to my first car), but one my dad owned. Specifically, the taxi he owned (a 12-plate Peugeot Partner) before the most recent one was a money pit and was as good as carked mechanically by the time he threw in the towel and got rid (it was repaired and put back on the road, as I do remember seeing it around Clydebank a couple times with another driver). Was glad to see the back of it personally.

The 65-plate Peugeot Partner he got to replace it was comparatively much better behaved, though not entirely without it's faults. However, it didn't see much in the way of use last year, as my dad was undergoing cancer treatment, so he wasn't well enough to work for much of the first half of the year, then in the latter half of the year, two very close family members passed away in close proxmity to each other; as in, only weeks apart. He had only been back to work full-time for a few weeks after all this when he was hit broad-side by a nurse (who had went through a stop sign) while picking up a passenger (who was in the taxi when the collision occurred). He later recounted that if she had hit him just ever so slightly further to the left or right, he would've ended up on his side at the very least. As it was, the driver's side was completely caved in, the sliding door a mangled piece of metal and the sill badly bent. In other words, a writeoff. It made for a forlorn picture, parked outside our flat over the Christmas/New Year period with one side covered in plastic sheeting and duct tape in a (mostly successful) attempt at keeping the elements out while the insurance was sorted out. Was hauled away for scrapping a few weeks ago.

 

[GS250]

I think any 'worse car' awards has to include the following group of cars:

Any American muscle car made in the early - mid 80s that came with a 4 cylinder engine. There were the F Body series of Firebird and Camaro plus Ford Mustang that were very sleek for the time. Their V8 engines had been strangled somewhat to comply with smog regulations but were torquey and stuck out around 160-190bhp. Performance was better than the power available would have suggested. If your Aunty wanted one but not the power or fuel consumption the V6 versions were just about acceptable as a brisk cruiser type car. However, it was a sign of the times but a 4 cylinder carb version was available too. Utterly horrible concept designed to woo younger drivers who wanted the looks but not the insurance or running costs. However seriously? 90bhp in a car like that? Please no.

Just to prove to the yanks that we could do it too. The Rover SD1 2000 model. Not only did you have to contend with the varied build quality but a revvy 4cyl engine struggling with a chassis originally designed for a V8. I suppose it made sense purely as a motorway cruiser but who the hell wanted to lug that weight about all day?

 

[Richard Scott]

Just to prove to the yanks that we could do it too. The Rover SD1 2000 model. Not only did you have to contend with the varied build quality but a revvy 4cyl engine struggling with a chassis originally designed for a V8. I suppose it made sense purely as a motorway cruiser but who the hell wanted to lug that weight about all day?

That was more to do with company car tax, I believe, anything over 2000cc was heavily penalised. Ford also got in on the act as there was a 2.0 Granada too that struggled to pull the skin off of a rice pudding. Only really decent 2.0 engines at the time were probably Italian, Alfa engine produced around 130hp, which was more than Ford's 2.3V6 and a match for the Rover's 2.6. Wasn't too far shy on the torque either.

 

[Cowley]

Speaking of terrible cars, I borrowed a friends split screen VW van once and it was an absolute wreck. Somehow he’d grafted the gearstick from a later Bay Window van onto the floor but it was almost impossible to change gear with.

When I pulled up outside the house I was living in I used to drive nose in to the hedgerow opposite and reverse up the side of the house. Unfortunately no matter what I did I just couldn’t find reverse and ended up blocking the (fairly busy) lane!

 

[DustyBin]

I think any 'worse car' awards has to include the following group of cars:

Any American muscle car made in the early - mid 80s that came with a 4 cylinder engine. There were the F Body series of Firebird and Camaro plus Ford Mustang that were very sleek for the time. Their V8 engines had been strangled somewhat to comply with smog regulations but were torquey and stuck out around 160-190bhp. Performance was better than the power available would have suggested. If your Aunty wanted one but not the power or fuel consumption the V6 versions were just about acceptable as a brisk cruiser type car. However, it was a sign of the times but a 4 cylinder carb version was available too. Utterly horrible concept designed to woo younger drivers who wanted the looks but not the insurance or running costs. However seriously? 90bhp in a car like that? Please no.

Just to prove to the yanks that we could do it too. The Rover SD1 2000 model. Not only did you have to contend with the varied build quality but a revvy 4cyl engine struggling with a chassis originally designed for a V8. I suppose it made sense purely as a motorway cruiser but who the hell wanted to lug that weight about all day?

The (rather fascinating!) South African Sierra XR8 used a very lightly de-restricted version of the Mustang’s 5.0 V8 but it still only made around 215bhp (the same as the Wife’s 1.6 Fiesta funnily enough!). It was still quick though, and it’s main purpose was to go racing anyway where it made considerably more power. It wasn’t a great time for muscle cars generally though I agree!

On the subject of large underpowered cars, there was actually a 1.8 Granada as well the BMW 518, both of which delivered “leisurely” performance. Just why?!

Edited to add that there were also early diesels by this point (shudder)……

 

[Dai Corner]

On the subject of large underpowered cars, there was actually a 1.8 Granada as well the BMW 518, both of which delivered “leisurely” performance. Just why?!

I'm guessing, but maybe something to do with the company car market? Underperforming sales reps given underperforming cars. Not having to drive a naff car would probably have been as motivational as a large bonus in those days.

 

[GS250]

I'm guessing, but maybe something to do with the company car market? Underperforming sales reps given underperforming cars. Not having to drive a naff car would probably have been as motivational as a large bonus in those days.

Nice theory!

Probably disapproved though by my Uncle who in the late 70s had a lovely Vauxhall 2.5 Viceroy as his company car. This was basically an early Carlton with a bigger engine. He gained a promotion and lo and behold got lumbered with a brand new but totally underpowered 1.8L Carlton auto.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

I had a 1987 blue Ford Orion 1.4 which was awful to drive and the exhaust fell off in the middle of rural Ireland. Lots of minor niggles and eventually traded it in for a Mondeo. I did get it cheap though. It replaced a run of three Opel Mantas, 1.8GT, 1.8GTJ and a 2.0GTE. All three were rust buckets.

 

[muddythefish]

VW Passat bought in Manchester in 1981. The car (built 1975) was in lovely condition, with shine unmarked red paintwork. It cost £900. Unfortunately, mechanically it was a shocker and cost me £1,500 over the next 2 years just to keep it on the road. I must have renewed just about every moving part. Glad to part-exchange it in 1983 for 1 year-old pale blue Ford Capri 2.0S - a nice car

 

[DelW]

On the subject of large underpowered cars, there was actually a 1.8 Granada as well the BMW 518, both of which delivered “leisurely” performance. Just why?!

I'm guessing, but maybe something to do with the company car market? Underperforming sales reps given underperforming cars. Not having to drive a naff car would probably have been as motivational as a large bonus in those days.

I think that when company car tax first came in (early 80s?), there was a step up in the rate for engines over 1800cc. It was set at that to try to benefit British Leyland, which had Marinas with engines just below that, while Ford and Vauxhall only had 1.6 and 2 litre engines in their competing ranges. I don't think it benefitted BL for long though. In the late 80s I had a company Sierra with the 1.8 CVH engine, which was way better than its predecessor which had the 1.6 OHC that went back to mk3 Cortinas (and originally the US Pinto I think).

 

[Richard Scott]

I think that when company car tax first came in (early 80s?), there was a step up in the rate for engines over 1800cc. It was set at that to try to benefit British Leyland, which had Marinas with engines just below that, while Ford and Vauxhall only had 1.6 and 2 litre engines in their competing ranges. I don't think it benefitted BL for long though. In the late 80s I had a company Sierra with the 1.8 CVH engine, which was way better than its predecessor which had the 1.6 OHC that went back to mk3 Cortinas (and originally the US Pinto I think).

Not sure about the CVH being way better than its predecessors; if it was then they were truly awful. Many said CVH stood for Coarse, Vibration and Harshness! Afraid many Ford engines of 70s and 80s were quite uninspiring and underwhelming.

 

[DelW]

Not sure about the CVH being way better than its predecessors; if it was then they were truly awful. Many said CVH stood for Coarse, Vibration and Harshness! Afraid many Ford engines of 70s and 80s were quite uninspiring and underwhelming.

The 1.6 Sierra I was comparing it with was on a C plate, and had probably the worst engine of a long series of company owned Fords from a mk2 Escort in 1981 to a mk3 Mondeo in 2008. It didn't help that the lead content of petrol was being reduced around that time, which it seemed not to like, and depending on the ignition setting it either pinked, or ran on, or both. It was sometimes necessary to put it back into gear and drop the clutch to stop it when running on.

I can certainly say that the 1.8 was a big improvement - I was only due another 1.6, but they were hard to get at the time, so I got a semi-unofficial upgrade. Various colleagues with 1.6s who travelled in it were quite envious at the time .

 

[GS250]

I think that when company car tax first came in (early 80s?), there was a step up in the rate for engines over 1800cc. It was set at that to try to benefit British Leyland, which had Marinas with engines just below that, while Ford and Vauxhall only had 1.6 and 2 litre engines in their competing ranges. I don't think it benefitted BL for long though. In the late 80s I had a company Sierra with the 1.8 CVH engine, which was way better than its predecessor which had the 1.6 OHC that went back to mk3 Cortinas (and originally the US Pinto I think).

This is probably why the Cavalier did so well in the early to mid 80s. The 1.6 and 1.8i engines were far better than anything that Ford offered on their Sierra.

 

[PG]

This is probably why the Cavalier did so well in the early to mid 80s. The 1.6 and 1.8i engines were far better than anything that Ford offered on their Sierra.

I'd forgotten about the Sierra estate I drove for less than a month. It was hurriedly acquired to replace an MOT failure but was frankly awful! Underpowered and the whine from the transmission and rear axle were horrendous. Managed to swap it for a Renault 18 which despite being front wheel drive had a longitudinal engine IIRC?

 

[DustyBin]

I think that when company car tax first came in (early 80s?), there was a step up in the rate for engines over 1800cc. It was set at that to try to benefit British Leyland, which had Marinas with engines just below that, while Ford and Vauxhall only had 1.6 and 2 litre engines in their competing ranges. I don't think it benefitted BL for long though. In the late 80s I had a company Sierra with the 1.8 CVH engine, which was way better than its predecessor which had the 1.6 OHC that went back to mk3 Cortinas (and originally the US Pinto I think).

Not sure about the CVH being way better than its predecessors; if it was then they were truly awful. Many said CVH stood for Coarse, Vibration and Harshness! Afraid many Ford engines of 70s and 80s were quite uninspiring and underwhelming.

This is probably why the Cavalier did so well in the early to mid 80s. The 1.6 and 1.8i engines were far better than anything that Ford offered on their Sierra.

I’m biased as I’ve had a long and happy relationship with the Ford OHC “Pinto” engine, but it’s really very good. You can actually build a brand new one even now, such is it’s popularity in motorsport in particular. Alloy blocks and heads are available too. Plus it was the basis of the Cosworth YB family.

That said, I realise where you’re coming from as some of the versions back in the day were complete boat anchors. The low compression versions of the 1.6 and 1.8 were particularly hideous, and there was also the (deservedly) rare 1.3 which is almost funny (as long as you didn’t have a Sierra fitted with one at the time of course!).

 

[GS250]

I’m biased as I’ve had a long and happy relationship with the Ford OHC “Pinto” engine, but it’s really very good. You can actually build a brand new one even now, such is it’s popularity in motorsport in particular. Alloy blocks and heads are available too. Plus it was the basis of the Cosworth YB family.

That said, I realise where you’re coming from as some of the versions back in the day were complete boat anchors. The low compression versions of the 1.6 and 1.8 were particularly hideous, and there was also the (deservedly) rare 1.3 which is almost funny (as long as you didn’t have a Sierra fitted with one at the time of course!)i

I must admit I nearly bought a 2.3 Sierra Ghia as it was a fairly quick and well appointed car at the time. It was quite a dated old thirsty V6 at a time when 4cyl injected engines were starting to shine.

I think Ford's first injected 2 litre appeared in that rare 1986 Sierra 2.0i sport trim?

 

[DustyBin]

I must admit I nearly bought a 2.3 Sierra Ghia as it was a fairly quick and well appointed car at the time. It was quite a dated old thirsty V6 at a time when 4cyl injected engines were starting to shine.

I think Ford's first injected 2 litre appeared in that rare 1986 Sierra 2.0i sport trim?

The 2.3 V6 provided refinement more than outright performance versus the 2.0 Pinto. A 2.3 Sierra Ghia would have been a nice car!

You’re right about the injected Pinto being Ford’s first injected 2.0 engine. I think it became available in the Sierra and Granada simultaneously, and I’m not sure which exact model saw it’s first application. The Sierra 2.0is would have been one of (if not the) first though as you say. I actually saw one at a show a couple of years ago. I didn’t realise up to that point that they were fitted with wheel trims as opposed to pepperpot alloys (although the difference is obvious if you look properly!).